Zwirner opened the first YEARLY contemporary art fair in London on July 4th, 1966.

"Here is a very broad desire not just to see art but to own it, a desire that had not been evident in the galleries at all." Thus, building a new and broad collecting base became the driving force behind the founding of KUNSTMARKT, effectively co-opting for a capitalist cause the pervasive calls on the part of leftist student groups to make art more accessible to everyone."

*** I really enjoy this statement because I liked the fact that Zwirner & Stunke wanted to make art more accessible to everyone-students, dealers, collectors, parents' and children-- I believe that art should be shown to everyone and not a select group-art is univeral.***

Printing limited-edition artist-design covers helped bring in more than 130,000 & + people for this art fair every year. These collecting novelties helped bring in the masses.

Vision of art fairs to have a transperant transaction with art.

Zwirner & Stunke purposely made art fairs "Commercial."

"Their focus on contemporary art functioned as both a means of publicity and a matter of economic necessity when appealing to young and adventurous but less affluent audiences."

Art work showing in the fairs had to be progressive.

"During its most vibrant years, between 1967 and 1972, the KUNSTMARKT was largely responsible for generating the most public and open discussion about the contemporary art market in history."

Without the birth of KUNSTMARKT, the art market would not be generating a stedy flow of money." Art is life and the art market is money is obvious in this article.

What would happen if we didn't have an art market?

Why is the lighting so cheesy on poor at the convention center at the Miami Art Basel?

I do not think that showing certain pieces of work in a convention center is not a good thing because of the poor lighting and cheesy curating.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Reading this article made me realize that it is OK to run a space that does not necessarly look or run like a main-stream gallery.

Gallery's are always constantly changing--they act like fluid forms. If gallery's are always changing, than why should an artist be stuck showing in a white cube? If artists were only allowed to show in a white cube - it would limit they're creativity.

"Galleries are now trying to brake their ascent to establishment status by interrupting the flow of monthly shows and finished objects, substituting a month long presentation of short exhibitions and even shorter performances."

There are traditional spaces and alternative spaces, and the fluidity of the white cube falls under the word: transparency.

"Modes of Attention" and rhetoric displays" are slowly being tossed out out the average white cube space.

A New Boss, and a Jolt of Real-World Expertise

Many people in the art world where shocked when they found out the news that Jeffery Deitch, a New York art dealer became the director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, California.

Deitch is a prominent business man who received his MBA in business at Harvard.

He has a fascination with esoteric art. Some people in the art world think is taste in art is ridiculous and some people praise his taste of art.

The reason why some people are shocked that Deitch is the new director of the Museum of Contemporary art because it is unusual that a art dealer becomes director of a Museum.

I am in favor of Deitch accepting the role of art director, because he is a business man and the museum was in a financial crisis and they needed someone who is was more of a business man then an art director.

Anti-Mainstream Museum’s Mainstream Show

Skin Fruit was not a show good for the the New Museums exhibition.

Seeing the show up close did not make mends with the art world.

The show featured significant talets such as Mike Kelley and Cindy Sherman.

The show experienced negative criticism from the beginning.

The New Musuem's motto was about being Anti-Mainstream but it the New Museums exhibtion was very mainstream.